Categories for Feature

It came!

Canada’s (sovereign) future is so bright, I gotta wear shades!

Comments (3)

CALGARY – There are different types of conservatives. In Canada, all will be facing big tests very soon.

All of them get categorized as conservatives. But in personality and style, they could not be more different.

There is Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the federal Conservative Party, which was previously known as the Progressive Conservative Party. When the party’s name change happened in 2003 – via a merger that was more of a take-over – those conservatives still on the progressive side of the spectrum fretted about what would happen to the party of Mulroney and Stanfield.

Stephen Harper mollified them for a decade. While Harper would sometimes employ the rhetoric of his Reform Party antecedents, his actions, in power, were decidedly centrist. Ominous predictions that he would end gay marriage and abortion – including by this writer – never came to pass.

Harper mainly abstains from commenting on current affairs in Canada. A few days ago, however, he gave an important interview in which he excoriated Donald Trump, saying that the newly-installed president was neither a friend nor ally of Canada. Harper, then, is a conservative who knows the lexicon – but embraces a kinder and gentler approach when it counts.

Poilievre, on the other hand, favors bumper-sticker articulations of policy – which arguably works well in the Internet age, when everyone is competing for attention in a cyber-space filled with a trillion channels. But it’s a style that has aroused suspicions that Poilievre favors simplistic solutions to complex problems. And, perhaps, it has contributed to a significant recent slide in Conservative support in Ontario, which he needs to win majority power.

It is a puzzle, because Poilievre can give thoughtful answers when he is in the mood – during a recent tour in Atlantic Canada, for example, his plan to respond to American tariffs was more comprehensive than anything heard to date by federal Liberals. Then, a few days later, Poilievre actually accused a Zionist Jewish Liberal MP of favoring Hamas. It was disgusting, and it was the sort of thing of which electoral defeats are made.

Trump, of course, is who he is: no one can accuse him of hiding the flavor of conservatism he espouses. He is a conservative in the mold of former president William McKinley, an empire-building conservative Republican who once admitted he couldn’t locate the Philippines on a map – but seized it anyway in 1898.

Trump’s military threats against Panama, Greenland and Denmark – an actual NATO ally – eerily recall McKinley’s manifest destiny madness. Canada, which has also been repeatedly threatened by Trump, would be unwise to dismiss Trump’s McKinley-style expansionism. (Trump, meanwhile, would be wise to avoid McKinley’s fate: an anarchist assassinated the 25th president in 1901.)

[To read more, subscribe here]

Comments (4)

Comments (49)

One’s enemy reveals himself by degrees.

Vladimir Putin’s Russia did not suddenly show itself to be the enemy of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. At dawn on that day, yes, Russia launched air and ground assaults on Ukraine, from the North, South and East. Yes.

But Russia had been massing troops on its border with Ukraine since 2021. Putin had penned bellicose essays justifying his planned war, promoting “the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians.” Threats were made, over and over, to Ukrainian leaders. Russia’s transformation into the enemy of Ukraine did not happen overnight. It had been underway for some time.

So, too, Donald Trump. He has transformed himself into Canada’s enemy, and the word is not overstatement. The dictionaries define “enemy” as “a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.” That is effectively what the newly-returned President of the United States is, now: the one who is actively opposed to us, as a people and a nation. The one who has repeatedly shown hostility towards us.

The evidence is not difficult to find. There has been a lot of it, for weeks, both before and after Trump took the oath of office (without, we note, placing his hand on the Bible).

• Trump has said he will use “economic force” against us

• Trump has repeatedly said he will impose 25 per cent tariffs on us – which will result in hundreds of thousands of Canadians losing their jobs and a recession

• Trump has said he wants to take over Canada, and make us the “the 51st state”

• Trump has mocked our leaders, from Justin Trudeau to Pierre Poilievre

And, this week, Trump broadcast his apparent hatred of Canada to the world – to an audience at the World Economic Forum in Davis. (And, permit us some amusement about those who used to loudly fulminate about WEF-related conspiracies – and how they have gone deeply silent since their hero showed up there.)

[To read more, subscribe here]

Comments (9)

To us Catholics, there are sins of “commission” and “omission.” 

Sins of omission happen when we know we should have done something right, but didn’t. A sin of commission is one where we actually take some action – in thought, word, or deed. Those sins can be intentional or unintentional.

Politically, there have been an awful lot of sins happening this week. Sins of commission and omission, everywhere.

The American ones are well-known.  Newly-reinstalled President Donald Trump pardoned about 1,500 convicted rioters who stormed Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021. Among them were white supremacists and neo-Nazis. One, Robert Keith Packer, became well-known for wearing a sweatshirt that read “CAMP AUSCHWITZ” and “work brings freedom.” On the back, it said “STAFF.” He got out, which is Trump’s sin of commission.

Trump’s top unelected advisor, Elon Musk, also was arguably sinful, too.  Musk got onstage at Capital One Arena in Washington, where Trump was holding a rally.  Musk thanked the assembled MAGA folks for “making it happen” and then – twice, not just once – made a stiff-armed salute.

A debate immediately commenced as to whether Musk made a Nazi salute or not. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, who is a history professor at New York University, said on X: “Historian of fascism here. It was a Nazi salute and a very belligerent one too.” Israeli academic and activist Shai Davidai wrote on Instagram that “doing a Nazi salute is never okay…you’re normalizing that which shouldn’t be normalized.” The Anti-Defamation League, which used to take issue with Nazi symbols, posted a much-maligned message saying “this is a delicate moment,” can’t we all just get along, blah blah blah.

[To read more, subscribe here]

Comments (5)

Comments (14)

The best thing about being a writer is being somewhere and someone quietly comes up to you, and they say something you wrote affected them and stayed with them. Happy, sad, anger, remembering: whatever.

That’s the payoff.

**

In politics, the job is always hiding a lot of the unattractive things about the candidate – usually anger and impatience. Poilievre is fascinating because he doesn’t do that. He just is what he is.

That’s a big gamble.

**

For the last few years, when I hear “never a dull moment,” I say to myself “I could really go for some dull moments”

**

The thing about the carbon tax is that everyone was in favor of taxing polluters until they found out they were included in the list of polluters and then they were against it

**

Carney’s problem is that he’s never been a politician and it shows. Freeland’s problem is that she’s been a politician and it shows.

Poilievre’s problem is Trump.

**

The politics of this era is the politics of cruelty.

**

Fans of CBC need to reflect on the fact that Poilievre has said he’ll defund the CBC about a million times, and he’s gone up in polling. If fans of CBC want to save CBC, they needed to do more than they’ve done.

**

Carney: fail to launch.

**

Carney and Freeland abandoning the carbon tax. Quoth the Bard: “God has given you one face, and you make yourself another.”

**

Gladiator II: you be glad if you never watch it.

#WarrenMovieReviews

**

This feels like the last regular weekday before everything gets way worse.

Comments (11)

As is well-known: Ottawa and Washington, D.C. are Hollywood for ugly people. Less-known: using good-looking celebrities to win votes doesn’t always work.

Sometimes it even backfires.

Case in point: Kamala Harris, who is days away from watching her opponent take the oath of office at the U.S. Capitol building. Throughout the Democrat’s 100-day presidential campaign – for which this writer volunteered, full disclosure – Harris was notable for one thing above all: celebrity endorsements.

One minute after the debate between Harris and the Republican’s Donald Trump concluded, in fact, the most powerful person in show business posted a statement on X, endorsing Harris. 

“Like many of you, I watched the debate tonight,” wrote music superstar Taylor Swift. “I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election. I’m voting for @kamalaharris (https://www.instagram.com/kamalaharris/?hl=en) because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them. I think she is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos.”

Swift accompanied her post on X with a fetching shot of Herself holding one of her cats.  It was an unsubtle shot at the dumb remarks earlier made by Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance, about Democratic “childless cat ladies.” Swift even signed off her post as “Taylor Swift, Childless Cat Lady.”

Swift’s post “caused a major stir,” wrote Billboard. “A tremendous shot of adrenaline to [Harris’] campaign,” the New York Times declared in a three-byline story (not opinion column). Swift’s endorsement “could mobilize first-time and younger voters given her intense fandom,” enthused CBC News. MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell declared it “the most important celebrity endorsement I’ve ever seen.”

Well, no, actually. Harris went on to decisively lose to Trump, who himself could only scrounge up endorsements from losers like Kid Rock, Mel Gibson and Joe Exotic. You know: the guy from Tiger King, who offered his support from a jail cell.

Like newspaper editorial endorsements, celebrity endorsements simply don’t have the cachet they once did. In fact – like newspaper endorsements – there is some data to suggest they actually have the opposite effect. An earlier survey by the Beacon Center found 81 per cent of Americans said Swift’s endorsement would not affect the way they voted. Five per cent even said it would make them less likely to take Swift’s advice.

Swift wasn’t the only one who pushed for Harris. Bruce Springsteen did, too, in multiple cities. Beyoncé did, as well, in a final-week star-studded gala. Others who stumped for the Democrats: Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney, Leonardo DioCaprio, and loads more. Effect on the ground: zero, or close to it.

Which brings, this week, to the Michael Ignatieff with a pocket calculator, erstwhile Liberal leadership candidate Mark Carney.  The former Governor of both the Bank of England and the Bank of Canada popped by Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show. Which is filmed in New York City, and not Timmins.

Carney was convivial and engaging, and demonstrated that he can put two sentences together without drooling. “I am an outsider,” said Carney, the outsider who has been giving Justin Trudeau financial advice for about two years, and whose leadership campaign is being run by Trudeau’s inner circle.

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre is the “type of politician who tends to be a lifelong politician,” Carney told Stewart, adding that Poilievre sees “opportunity in tragedy.” Coming from the guy who has now seen opportunity in the tragicomedy that is the Liberal Party leadership, that was bit rich. But we digress.

Carney got what he came for. Stewart, who meets the dictionary definition of lifelong curmudgeon, declared that Carney had “charm and debonair wit, yet strong financial backbone!”

For the few remaining card-carrying Liberal Party members – feeling lovelorn, lonely and lost – that’s practically enough to run an entire 36-day campaign on. “Mark Carney: he’s charming, debonair, and he can balance a chequebook! Vote Liberal!”

Will it be enough? Go ask Kamala, Mark. She’ll tell you:

The only endorsement that counts is the one you get from the voters.

Comments (3)

Comments (3)

by Jean Chretien

Today is my 91st birthday.

It’s an opportunity to celebrate with family and friends. To look back on the life I’ve had the privilege to lead. And to reflect on how much this country we all love so much has grown and changed over the course of the nine decades I’ve been on this Earth.

This year, I’ve also decided to give myself a birthday present. I’m going to do something in this article that I don’t do very often anymore, and sound off on a big issue affecting the state of the nation and profoundly bothering me and so many other Canadians: The totally unacceptable insults and unprecedented threats to our very sovereignty from U.S. president-elect Donald Trump.

I have two very clear and simple messages.

To Donald Trump, from one old guy to another: Give your head a shake! What could make you think that Canadians would ever give up the best country in the world – and make no mistake, that is what we are – to join the United States?

I can tell you Canadians prize our independence. We love our country. We have built something here that is the envy of the world – when it comes to compassion, understanding, tolerance and finding a way for people of different backgrounds and faiths to live together in harmony.

We’ve also built a strong social safety net – especially with public health care – that we are very proud of. It’s not perfect, but it’s based on the principle that the most vulnerable among us should be protected.

This may not be the “American Way” or “the Trump Way.” But it is the reality I have witnessed and lived my whole long life.

If you think that threatening and insulting us is going to win us over, you really don’t know a thing about us. You don’t know that when it came to fighting in two world wars for freedom, we signed up – both times – years before your country did. We fought and we sacrificed well beyond our numbers.

We also had the guts to say no to your country when it tried to drag us into a completely unjustified and destabilizing war in Iraq.

We built a nation across the most rugged, challenging geography imaginable. And we did it against the odds.

We may look easy-going. Mild-mannered. But make no mistake, we have spine and toughness.

And that leads me to my second message, to all our leaders, federal and provincial, as well as those who are aspiring to lead our country: Start showing that spine and toughness. That’s what Canadians want to see – what they need to see. It’s called leadership. You need to lead. Canadians are ready to follow.

I know the spirit is there. Ever since Mr. Trump’s attacks, every political party is speaking out in favour of Canada. In fact, it is to my great satisfaction that even the Bloc Québécois is defending Canada.

But you don’t win a hockey game by only playing defence. We all know that even when we satisfy one demand, Mr. Trump will come back with another, bigger demand. That’s not diplomacy; it’s blackmail.

We need another approach – one that will break this cycle.

Mr. Trump has accomplished one thing: He has unified Canadians more than we have been ever before! All leaders across our country have united in resolve to defend Canadian interests.

When I came into office as prime minister, Canada faced a national unity crisis. The threat of Quebec separation was very real. We took action to deal with this existential threat in a manner that made Canadians, including Quebeckers, stronger, more united and even prouder of Canadian values.

Now there is another existential threat. And we once again need to reduce our vulnerability. That is the challenge for this generation of political leaders.

And you won’t accomplish it by using the same old approaches. Just like we did 30 years ago, we need a Plan B for 2025.

Yes, telling the Americans we are their best friends and closest trading partner is good. So is lobbying hard in Washington and the state capitals, pointing out that tariffs will hurt the American economy too. So are retaliatory tariffs – when you are attacked, you have to defend yourself.

But we also have to play offence. Let’s tell Mr. Trump that we too have border issues with the United States. Canada has tough gun control legislation, but illegal guns are pouring in from the U.S. We need to tell him that we expect the United States to act to reduce the number of guns crossing into Canada.

We also want to protect the Arctic. But the United States refuses to recognize the Northwest Passage, insisting that it is an international waterway, even though it flows through the Canadian Arctic as Canadian waters. We need the United States to recognize the Northwest Passage as being Canadian waters.

We also need to reduce Canada’s vulnerability in the first place. We need to be stronger. There are more trade barriers between provinces than between Canada and the United States. Let’s launch a national project to get rid of those barriers! And let’s strengthen the ties that bind this vast nation together through projects such as real national energy grid.

We also have to understand that Mr. Trump isn’t just threatening us; he’s also targeting a growing list of other countries, as well as the European Union itself, and he is just getting started. Canada should quickly convene a meeting of the leaders of Denmark, Panama, Mexico, as well as with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, to formulate a plan for fighting back these threats.

Every time that Mr. Trump opens his mouth, he creates new allies for all of us. So let’s get organized! To fight back against a big, powerful bully, you need strength in numbers.

The whole point is not to wait in dread for Donald Trump’s next blow. It’s to build a country and an international community that can withstand those blows.

Canadians know me. They know I am an optimist. That I am practical. And that I always speak my mind. I made my share of mistakes over a long career, but I never for a moment doubted the decency of my fellow Canadians – or of my political opponents.

The current and future generations of political leaders should remember they are not each other’s enemies – they are opponents. Nobody ever loved the cut-and-thrust of politics more than me, but I always understood that each of us was trying to make a positive contribution to make our community or country a better place.

That spirit is more important now than ever, as we address this new challenge. Our leaders should keep that in mind.

I am 91 today and blessed with good health. I am ready at the ramparts to help defend the independence of our country as I have done all my life.

Vive le Canada!

Comments (16)